1

Workshop Report- Verifying the scope and key issues for the Waste Shipment

Regulation (WSR) evaluation

European Commission,

Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB) Room 1.C, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels

Thursday 11th January 2018, 09H30-17H30

Agenda

Indicative time Activity

09.00 – 09.30 Registration

09.30 – 10.20 Introduction

- Background, scene setting and purpose of the day (DG ENV)

- Presentation of the WSR evaluation study (Wood)

- Other issues

- Q&A

10.20 – 11.30 Session 1 – Overall procedural framework and prior written notification and consent

Short presentation (Wood) and participants’ discussion, including on:

• Overall procedural framework (Article 3)

• Prior written notification and consent (Articles 4-17)

11.30 - 11.40 Coffee/tea break

11.40 – 12.30 Session 2 – General information requirements

Short presentation (Wood) and participants’ discussion, including on:

• Article 18 on waste to be accompanied by certain information

• Annex VII on information accompanying shipment of waste

12.30 – 13.30 Lunch

13.30 - 14.30 Session 3 – General issues

Short presentation (Wood) and participants’ discussion, including on:

• Articles 19-21 on prohibition of mixing, keeping of documents and information

and public access to notifications

• Articles 22-25 covering take-back

• Articles 26-30 on general administrative provisions

2

• Article 33 – Shipments exclusively within Member States

14.30 – 15.30 Session 4 Enforcement and inspection

Short presentation (Wood) and participants’ discussion, addressing Articles 49-56:

• Inspection plans

• Enforcement gaps

• Inspection powers

15.30 – 15.40 Coffee/tea

15.40 – 16.40 Session 5 Export, import and transit

Short presentation (Wood) and participants’ discussion addressing:

• Articles 31-32 for shipments within the community with transit via third

countries

• Articles 34-39 concerning exports to Third Countries

• Articles 41-46 concerning imports from Third Countries

• Articles 47 and 48 concerning transit from and to Third Parties

• Regulation 1418/2007

16.40 - 17.00 Next steps (Wood)

Concluding remarks – DG ENV

Workshop summary

Introduction by DG Environment:

DG Environment (DG ENV) gave an introduction on the objectives of the Waste Shipment Regulation

(WSR) evaluation. It was mentioned that part of the aim of this workshop, and the evaluation, is to

identify good and bad practices, and whether the Regulation meets its objectives. The evaluation is an

evidence-based exercise, and the workshop will help us collect information to support the evaluation.

The evaluation looks at the status quo but is not intended to develop or consider amendments of the

WSR. If the evaluation concludes that amendments may be beneficial, any amendments would be

developed and assessed via an Impact Assessment (IA) of the WSR. This would occur in 2019, followed, if

justified by the IA and if appropriate, by a legislative proposal to revise the WSR by 31/12/2020.

Introduction by Wood:

The Project Manager of the evaluation study explained that the agenda has been slightly revised

according to the Articles of the WSR. He further presented the project, its objectives, tasks and

stakeholder involvement.

The main objective of the project is to perform an evaluation of the application of the WSR in all

Member States, including all amendments as well as the existing rules deriving from Regulation (EC) No

1418/2007. The study will analyse the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added

value of the WSR and aims to collect good as well as bad practices and experiences. The study will cover

issues raised by the WSR legislation as well as by its implementation.

3

First reactions from the stakeholders:

National Reports – A Member State suggested that Member State reports prepared as result of

requirement s of the WSR and the Basel Convention may provide relevant information for the

evaluation.

Outdated objective of WSR – A waste industry representative discussed how the original objective of

the WSR was from a defensive standpoint, i.e. to limit transboundary shipments. However, the waste

market has evolved and the focus of the WSR should now shift to trying to better enable cooperation on

transboundary shipments. This shift of objective implies changes may be required.

Circular economy – One industrial representative asked if external action by non-EU countries would be

assessed. They highlighted that the Chinese decision to limit plastic imports has important links to the

circular economy. It highlights the lack of an internal EU market for secondary raw materials. Another

waste industry representative suggested the use of the literature and jurisprudence on WSR

interpretation as this was relevant for the evaluation. They also mentioned how parts of the WSR are

hampering the development of the circular economy. Coherence of the WSR with the circular economy

was seen as a positive step forward.

Session 1 – Overall procedural framework and prior written notification and consent

This session covered the overall procedural framework (Art 3) and prior written notification and consent

(Art 4-17).

The general perception of the notification procedure is that it requires a lot of effort and cost for the

economic operators. For certain stakeholders, the notification procedure (or certain elements of it) is

perceived as redundant and as such does not add much value. For example:

• Role of transit countries – tacit consent deadline of 30 days perceived as being burdensome,

• Paper based documentation perceived as burdensome,

• There are also language issues, and

• There is a bureaucratic burden associated with the application procedure for becoming a pre-

consented waste treatment facility.

Reactions from stakeholders:

Importance of considering all interested parties in the evaluation – it was pointed out that the

evaluation needs to consider the views of industry representatives but also of those of competent

authorities.

Constraints imposed by International Law – Many of the stakeholders noted that certain aspects of the

WSR are defined by overarching international law (Basel Convention and OECD Decision

C(2001)107/final). One Member State outlined the need to explore the possibility of making changes at

Basel or OECD level. However, another noted that the OECD decision and in particular the main text of

the Basel Convention are difficult to change. It was noted that Annexes I, III, and IV of the latter are

under review and could be changed. The Commission (EC) highlighted that the study was not aimed at

4

making amendments, yet, and as regards intra-EU shipments of waste, if certain provisions stemming

from the Basel Convention are perceived as not contributing to the efficiency of the WSR and could

potentially benefit from adjustment, the possibility for such an adjustment is given in Art. 11 of the Basel

Convention which enables the conclusion of regional agreements among parties. Examples of such

agreements include OECD Decision C(2001)107/final which is already implemented in the WSR.

Notification Issues – Two Member States, an industrial representative, and a waste trade association

noted the burdensome nature of the notification procedure for both the Member States and the

industry, this burden is mainly administrative. However, they also stated that in general they are happy

with having the notification procedure in the WSR, though there are opportunities to improve it. A

potential improvement discussed in this regard was to allow the electronic exchange of documents, with

one Member State suggesting that it should be made mandatory. Other potential improvements include

new notifications with change of transporter, or having a separate procedure for EU shipment only, as

90-95% of shipments are EU based waste. Another industrial expert noted the need for differentiation

between first notification and revised notification, as the latter usually has less delays. One Member

State pointed out that it is important to keep the notification procedure for unlisted waste in order to

know what waste is shipped, and to extend Annex IIIB by adding e.g. composite materials (where these

are recoverable in the EU).

A waste industry association mentioned that 99% of notifications are general notifications under Art 13,

and due to the original scope of the WSR (transport of waste from A to B), the WSR notification

procedure is built on a single movement of waste, but this should be revised to cover multiple loads, and

to cover immediately general notifications and not to treat them as a quasi-derogation, as they are

treated today. The stakeholder also pointed out the fact that the "procedure of prior-written

notification and consent" (notification procedure) is somehow the default shipment procedure under

the WSR with the only exception being the transboundary shipment of 'green'-listed wastes for

recovery.

Consent Issues – Some of the stakeholders discussed issues with the deadline of 30 days for tacit

consent. The fixed time limit was described as shortening the period for shipments and causing issues

for industry, by a Member State and industrial representative, respectively. The Member State

commented that the provision regarding tacit consent should be reworded in order to better suit both

the authorities and the companies concerned. Another Member State noted that the validity period of

one year for a tacit consent would always start after the end of the 30 day period, whereas the validity

period of one year for a written consent could also start at a later date, with the consequence that the

period in which shipment can take place could be shorter than one year. A Member State representative

pointed out that the tacit consent for transit countries 30-day limit was set in the Basel convention, so

changing it for the EU would not be simple. An industry representative stated that some MS authorities

regard the 30-day as the set period, so never do it quicker.

A Member State level trade association highlighted that not all states are willing to register foreign

carriers, so having to acquire registration from their home country, each EU country through which they

5

pass and the destination country is cumbersome. An industrial expert noted that only the home and

final destination country consents were important.

Overall, the consent procedure was seen as burdensome, with reports that some authorities request up

to 100 documents, although this figure was regarded as an exaggeration.

Pre-consented facilities - Pre-consented facilities (Article 14) were described as problematic by some

waste industry associations, due to a lack of criteria or consistent interpretation, which allows

divergence between Member States and the high burden of becoming a pre-consented facility

compared to the benefits obtained, in particular the prolonged period of validity (three years) which

stems from a provision in the OECD Decision. An industrial representative suggested increasing the

number of years for the validity period (i.e. from the current 3 to 5- 7 years), and another industrial

representative favoured a fast-track system for pre-consent. One Member State mentioned that pre-

consent facilities seem to work in their country, but that there is a lack of guidelines and a divergence

between MS, which could be improved.

Varying interpretations and implementation of the WSR provisions – Several stakeholders mentioned

that one of the issues with the WSR is the different interpretation of the provisions of the Regulation

across Member States. This relates to, for example, waste classifications and differing interpretation of

elements of other provisions of the WSR, mentioned by a waste industry association; Art 3.5 and Art 12

of the WSR where different interpretations give many grounds for restricting waste flows (and the free

market); port hopping; and the requested amount of documentation (some Member States request

more than others). According to a waste industry association, these articles need to be reviewed in

order to reduce the grounds for objection, to reflect the desire to achieve a more circular economy and

an EU waste market which functions better. It was also mentioned by industry that there is a large

variation between Member States with regard to time of consent of shipments (some could take up to

one year). To address varying implementation, which according to one MS one of the main issues,

additional guidance notes would be helpful.

Necessary Additions – An industrial representative noted the need to include certain defined composite

aluminium and plastic window frames in Annex IIIB. A Member State also suggested adding certain

defined composite materials to Annex III and IIIB, and in general amending Annex III and IIIB. Another

industrial representative questioned the lack of a specific code for solid recovered fuel, which is included

in Refuse Derived Fuel, thus preventing its shipment outside of Europe.

Financial guarantees – Financial guarantees were seen as laborious by one industrial representative

who suggested a small central fund for this. A Member State requested the limiting (in value) of the

financial guarantees, stating that they are not often used.

Interim recovery and disposal operations (Article 15) – Two Member States disagreed over the

necessity of Article 15 on the additional provisions regarding interim recovery and disposal operations.

One stated that it was an unnecessary bureaucratic procedure from the OECD decision. The other stated

it favoured the burdensome bureaucracy which protected the state from illegal waste imports.

6

Session 2 – General information requirements

Art 18 and Annex VII

The procedure is very useful for inspection and enforcement purposes as it shortens the time of control

for industry as the authorities already have the information related to the shipment.

The main issues identified were: use of different transport modes within one shipment, control of

shipments – as they are mainly controlled during the shipment phase, sensitive to infringements.

Different interpretations apply – e.g. what is considered as green listed waste not applied in a consistent

way.

Reactions from stakeholders:

Green listed wastes – An industrial stakeholder highlighted their satisfaction with the green list

procedure and wanted it to remain in place. Another noted that there could be translation issues. A

Member State stated that some types of waste for which the shipment for recovery is subject to the

notification procedure could be moved to the 'green'-list. One industrial representative raised the point

that the problems are not a regulatory issue but an enforcement issue. He gave the example of four

grades of wood: A (green listed) to D (hazardous), problems of implementation (inconsistent

interpretation of the gradings) means that there are illegal shipments of grade B and C.

Annex VII – A few Member States noted the benefits of Annex VII (and Art 18 in general) for

enforcement and reducing inspection times, which is beneficial to industries, and for traceability - seeing

what is in the whole load, i.e. what is loaded and where, and where it ends up – as there are many

intermediaries. A few industrial stakeholders and Member States noted that an important issue was the

need to make Annex VII documentation electronic, stating that this would reduce the divergent

practices in Member States (such as where to place the physical copy of the Annex - An industry

representative pointed out that different countries have different practices with regard to, for example,

where to physically place Annex VII documentation - some MS say on container, others say on top of

waste). Electronic data would also help with green listed waste (in terms of an electronic form for Annex

VII), and help collecting statistics. The risks to confidentiality were pointed out when using paper-based

documentation. However, one Member State would not prefer a mandatory electronic system for the

case of shipments falling under the Art 18.

There was also confusion over if it was a necessity to have an additional signature on the form.

Correspondents’ Guidelines are provided but they are still not clear on some points.

It was also pointed out that Article 18 and Annex VII only apply in the EU, while for shipments outside

EU there exist over a hundred other regulations and there are also some prohibitions at national level.

As such, Annex VII should not be seen in a vacuum.

Illegal traffic – An industry association representative stated that there is not much illegal traffic under

notification procedure, but a lot of illegal traffic under the Art. 18 procedure. Hence, inspections and

controls are necessary. According to the stakeholder, there should be information exchange before the

shipment starts. Another industrial representative noted the illegal shipment of woods grade B and C

coming down to implementation issues.

7

Use of multiple transport modes within one shipment – As highlighted in session 1, the WSR has

difficulty in addressing a shipment with multiple transport modes. An industrial representative,

mentioned that legislation is based on an assumption of a single transport trip, meaning one vehicle and

two locations (sending location, and receiving location). This does not work for multiple transport

modes (i.e. road, rail, maritime transport). This causes problems with, for example, documentation, as

different authorities might have different interpretations of how to deal with the same shipment, and

the train and maritime transport companies do not take the annexes of the regulation into account. A

recyclers association mentioned that some transport methods are also not considered within Article 18

and Annex VII. One Member State representative also pointed out that the language of the WSR is not

clear as regards who should do what at which stage, for example, who should fill in Annex VII in the case

of import. This could be solved within the framework of national legislation.

Threshold contamination levels - Another related discussion point was on fixed threshold levels for

contamination, which many felt should not be supported as they hinder technical development. A

stakeholder pointed out that the threshold levels should be based on the nature of the waste and the

contaminant (and their environmental impact). Circular economy goals imply more waste is transported,

which requires movement of big volumes to make recycling of some materials viable (as such a need to

centralise recycling). This implies more transport. Another Member State representative pointed out

that it would be helpful if the EU could set threshold limits of contamination for certain wastes.

On impurity limits – some Member States publish the limits they accept. An industry association

representative raised the question of why impurities are refused in case of contamination not having a

negative environmental impact, as reducing environmental impact is the main objective of the WSR. In

other words, there are some contaminations that can be expected, and which do not have negative

environmental impacts because waste operators know how to deal with them (e.g. Glass waste -

contamination with wine or metals).

Divergence of practice – it was highlighted that some countries, e.g. France and Slovenia, only allow

export for companies established in that country – hence companies need to open a national presence

in that country in order to operate. They suggested that consistency between Member States would be

useful.

Session 3 – General issues

Covering articles 19- 25, general admin Articles 26-30, and Article 33 on shipments exclusively within

Member States.

SMEs were previously surveyed but they did not highlight major administrative difficulties. The main

issues pointed out in the literature were:

• Problems with end of waste – divergent MS definitions. Different waste / non- waste definition

• Costs to MS competent authorities, estimated 2500 illegal shipments between 2000-2012,

• NGO reports mention that large numbers of illegal shipments to developing world,

• Lots of complaints on Art. 28 – from countries of dispatch, and transit countries

• Data reported on illegal shipments – reflects detection not reality – led to strengthening

inspections (Impel random inspection give a better estimate of illegal.)

8

Reactions from stakeholders:

Language barriers – an industry association representative pointed out that there are language barriers

in some Member States leading to problems with shipments. An example was given with respect to the

rules to calculate energy recovery where in some Member States, the published data on R1 is contested

but it is very difficult to translate and prove calculations.

Take-back of illegal shipments – One Member State highlighted that having take-back as the first

solution for illegal shipment (Art 24) might not be the best solution as it might be better to treat the

illegal shipment in the destination country. Furthermore, they noted that under Art 25(2) cost should be

paid by the country of destination, but that sometimes it is not possible to know the country of

destination, and sometimes the shipment has not yet reached the country of final destination.

Moreover, there was confusion over which country takes the costs, whether it is the final destination

country or where the shipment is stopped. Two industry association representatives noted the take-

back takes a long time, however, one noted it was not necessarily a negative issue, just time consuming,

as take-back procedures are quite normal within a country. The industry association explained that if

there are more countries involved in the notification (minimum two), and the shipment is called illegal

because of a simple reason, such as for example oversized parts, it still takes time to be organised due to

exchange of documents. However, the take-back works well in principle, and the financial guarantee is

not used in such cases.

Waste Code – An industrial representative, noted that the waste code – EU list, Basel convention and

OECD – was extremely important. They suggested that there needs to be a table of correspondence

between the three lists. A Member State questioned this statement by claiming that this is not possible

as all three waste code lists are from different systems and cross comparisons are not possible.

However, the Commission noted that work is being done to align some of the codes. The EU adopted an

implementation table, with alignment between custom codes and waste codes under Regulation

1245/2016. The industry representative also stressed the need to look at the waste hierarchy, which

also applies when waste is shipped. In deciding to grant a consent for a transboundary shipment under

the notification procedure, competent authorities should take into account the waste hierarchy.

Currently the WSR (in particular Art. 12) does not oblige competent authorities to look into this aspect.

End-of-Waste criteria and Issue of Classification – An industry association representative stated that

national end-of-waste criteria must be notified to the Commission. In this instance, as noted by an

industrial representative, if there are no national criteria for end-of-waste, then it can still be shipped

and considered as waste in the country of destination. A Member State added to this by noting that if a

Member State exports an item as non-waste to a country that defines it as waste it would only be

noticed if inspected. An industrial representative provided the example of exports from Czech Republic,

where they classified an item as a product, however it was classified as waste in Germany. This has led

to the Czech Republic’s refusal to accept the return and created a case in the ECJ.

Regarding disagreement on classification issues, Art. 28, one Member State representative mentioned it

is useful to have this article. Two Member State representatives added that they did not think transit

9

countries should be involved in the decision of whether the shipment is illegal or not as it is an issue

mainly between dispatch and destination country. It was also mentioned that a potential solution to the

issue of different classification of waste is to agree that the most stringent definition applies (as is

already the case under Art 28) or to have an EU wide definition. Another Member State added that

classification of materials is a big problem as one country says product material is waste, another that is

a product. According to the stakeholder this will not get solved without EU wide standards.

An industry representative queried how to avoid waste-transport to countries with long transition

periods to ban landfill according to the forthcoming revised Waste Framework Directive in case Art 28

applies. For some Member States, transition periods to no landfill are in place up to 2040. Furthermore,

they cited that some waste destined or labelled for recovery is still shipped to landfills in Member

States. However, the Commission highlighted that a ban on the transboundary shipment of waste for

disposal is missing from the WSR. An industrial representative outlined that the problem lies in

implementation, as a waste notified for landfill can be prohibited by a competent authority. However,

another industrial representative stated that in some cases, even landfilling is not solely disposal, for

example, this is the case when electricity is produced from the gas produced by the landfill. They stated

that if Europe wants to ban certain activities for export within the EU, the definitions have to be very

clear (and currently they are not). This applies to export outside of the EU as well.

Hazardous Waste –An industrial representative raised the issue, that hazardous waste is not always

shipped to the country where it can be best treated, which causes environmental issues. On the issue of

port hopping, they pointed out that when waste was transported by ship, the waste notifiers are not

directly in contact with the ship as their contact is with the shipping agent. This means that the waste

notifiers don’t have information on the ship being rerouted, so they can face illegal shipment claims

(because of rerouting) even though they are not responsible for the ship rerouting. This situation has led

to a reduction in the number of shipping companies willing to accept shipment of hazardous waste.

Sham Recovery – A Member State noted that sham recovery can be countered through national laws,

and queried whether other provisions are in place to address this. It was discussed that Article 11 and its

reasons for objection and proximity principles were the main provision already in place.

Other – according to one Member State, with regard to the format of the communication (Art 26),

electronic data interchange should be made mandatory.

Session 4 Enforcement and inspection

Covers Art 49-56

The literature review indicates that the WSR has led to increase in inspections because of an increase in

joint enforcement activities. This has led to increase in costs for industry. But improved participation of

police and customs and more co-operation is seen as a positive development.

• Some say better cooperation between competent authorities (between and within MS) is

needed.

• Language remains an issue, it is not clear which languages are acceptable to each competent

authority.

10

• Illegal exports to third countries still going on – estimated 22-32% non- compliance.

• High frequency of inspection does improve compliance

• Lack of harmonised inspection criteria

• Port hopping – still an issue?

• Register of violators

• Resources for enforcement (At MS level): more resources = more inspections.

• Sanctions vary between MSs,

• Art 49 – protection of environment – relates to facilities in third countries (being ‘broadly

equivalent’ to EU facilities. (Other routes to block shipment to low quality facilities in the EU)

Reactions from stakeholders

Necessity of Notification System – DG ENV questioned the extent to which the notification procedure is

currently required in the case of intra-EU shipments of waste, considering that treatment standards

within the EU are supposed to be fairly similar as this is implied by the text of Article 49(2). Some

Member State representatives stated that the treatment standards are not the same across the EU and

therefore, the notification procedure for intra-EU shipments (including the need for competent

authorities to provide consents) should be kept. One Member State suggested that the best option

would be to renew and extend the WSR annexes (especially Annex IIIB). A Member State representative

also suggested a certification system to ensure waste treatment facilities align their environmental

standards. An industrial representative raised the possibility for a ‘Schengen area’ for waste. However,

this was dismissed by two Member States and an industrial representative, on the basis that the EU

system lacks uniformity for waste treatment. Another industrial representative further highlighted that

the notification procedure is necessary, especially for hazardous waste. Lastly, a Member State noted

that notification is vital to ensure implementation of transportation standards (which are different in

different MS), not only of treatment standards. DG ENV responded that the rules on transportation are

covered in different legislation and this could in theory continue to exist even if a Schengen area for

waste were established. Thus these "other rules" should not be a reason to prevent the idea of a

Schengen area but perhaps could co-exist with it.

Enforcement and Inspection – One Member State discussed the 20-32% non-compliance rate and

stated that it should be treated with some caution because it was based on inspections usually carried

out due to intelligence led suspicion of non-compliance, rather than truly random inspections. If it had

been random inspections this figure would be lower. Lastly, another Member State highlighted that

IMPEL is not the only source of enforcement action and data. They stated that there are national level

examples of cooperation and controls, such as in Germany and Austria.

Session 5 Export, import and transit

This session covered:

• Articles 31-32 for shipments within the community with transit via third countries

• Articles 34-39 concerning exports to Third Countries

• Articles 41-46 concerning imports from Third Countries

• Articles 47 and 48 concerning transit from and to Third Parties

11

• Regulation 1418/2007

The literature review was reported to have indicated the following points in this area:

• There are still issues of illegal exports of waste such as WEEE, batteries and end of life vehicles.

• There are some concerns over waste being moved within the EU before export out of the EU, If

there are no (or lacking) inspections in the origin country, should the EU transit country be

blamed?

• There is a lack of alignment between Basel, OECD and EU waste codes. Though work on the

correlation tables should help.

DG ENV raised the following issues relating to Art. 37 and Reg. 1418/2007 that they requested

stakeholder views on:

• According to Art. 37(2) and 37(5), the notification procedure seems to be imposed in certain

exports of green-listed waste, but this can be ignored by the country of destination. The result is

that exports may get stuck.

• The Annex to Regulation 1418/2007 may contain incorrect information; however, it would be

illegal to apply the correct rules if this Regulation is not amended in a timely way. Is this

efficient?

• Art. 37 gives the option to some non-OECD countries to prohibit (or prescribe notification) for the

import of green-listed wastes for recovery from the EU; however, the same countries may import

the same wastes from other third countries without any controls. When compared to the

approach taken on the transboundary movement of non-hazardous waste on a global scale, is

the approach taken through the provisions of Art. 37 rather disproportionate and non-

pragmatic?

Reactions from stakeholders:

Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 – The Commission queried whether the Regulation was the necessary

and right instrument for export, or if a simpler system was required. The reason why the Regulation was

established, as stated by one Member State, was due to the need for precaution with regard to exports

to developing countries. It was therefore still a valid instrument to protect developing countries.

However, the last periodic update of Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 took place in 2014. Another

Member State stated that the Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 should be kept in place. A third noted that

if there are mistakes in the Regulation, and updates are necessary, relevant actors need to wait for an

update, which can cause frustration.

Article 18 and Annex VII – An industrial representative highlighted from their experience the issues

involved with getting a third country to sign Annex VII (especially field 5). As they are not bound by

Article 18 or the Annex they do not want to sign it. Clarity on the matter of who fills in what stage

regarding annex VII was a pivotal requirement for one of the Member States.

Exports outside EU –One industry representative mentioned how the export of mixed plastic waste to

Malaysia should not take place – if this waste cannot be recycled in the EU it should not be sent

elsewhere. The problem was said to stem from waste collection systems (mixing plastics with food

contamination). This point was expanded by another stakeholder who made the point that Art. 34 and

12

Art 49. Call for protecting the environment so exporting of plastic scrap to a third country (when much

of the scrap is not recyclable), should not be allowed.

Another industry stakeholder highlighted that the DG Trade website has been good at showing the

transparency of the system, (on third countries responses). Thailand accepting plastics from US but not

from EU which does not seem correct. Plastic waste is generally classified as non-hazardous, so is

generally not covered by Basel. The EU is setting a stricter standard on itself, which other waste

exporting countries do not seem to meet, e.g. some countries accept waste from (e.g.) USA but not EU.

Next steps

- Stakeholders can send information (especially any data that confirms the points raised in this

paper) to the WSR evaluation email, WSRevaluation@trinomics.eu

- The Commission evaluation report is expected to be adopted (and published) around spring

2019.

13

Workshop attendees:

Organisation

Invited stakeholder

1 Aurubis AG

2 Austrian Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry Environment and Water Management

3 BDE e.V.

4 Bureau of International Recycling

5-6 CEWEP

7 Czech Ministry of the Environment, Waste management depart.

8 Danish Chamber of Commerce

9-10 Danish Environmental Protection Agency

11 DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

12 Dutch Waste Management Association

13 Environmental Services Association (ESA)

14 Estonian Environmental Inspectorate

15 Estonian Ministry of the Environment

16-17 EUCOPRO

18 Eurometaux

19-20 EURITS

21 European Aluminium Association

22 European Recycling Industries’ Confederation (EuRIC)

23-24 FEAD

25 Federal Environment Ministry, Germany

26 FERVER

27 FNADE - French Federation of Waste Management

28 GEMINI CORPORATION NV

29 German Federal Environment Agency

30-32 HAZARDOUS WASTE EUROPE (HWE)

33 Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport; Ministerie Infrastructuur en Waterstaat

34 Kuehne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG, Hamburg

35 Leefmilieu Brussel

36 Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency

37 Miljøstyrelsen, Miljø- og Fødevareministeriet

38 Ministère de l'Environnement/DGPR/PNTTD

39 Ministry of Environment and Energiy Hamburg

40 Müller-Guttenbrunn GmbH

41 Norwegian Environment Agency

42 Secretariat of the Basel Convention

14

43 Stena Metall AB

44-45 SUEZ

46 Suez Trading Europe

47 Umicore

48 UNEP (Secretariat of the Basel Convention)

49 Veolia

50 WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle

Consultant

51-52 Wood

53-54 BiPRO (part of Ramboll)

55-56 Technopolis Group

57-58 Trinomics

Commission representatives

59-60 DG Environment

61 DG TAXUD

62 DG GROW

63 DG TRADE